The question is that should we believe such a man, who goes around ,
selling the cigarettes , that connect him with the crime, after Mr. N.
was killed ? (p.152) Moreover there is another witness, Mrs.
Lorelle Henry, the one who everyone agrees has not reason to lie.
She said that she was in the drugstore when the robbery began.
But why didn`t she saw Steve Harmen in the store, who was the
"lookout"? I think that if Steve was in the drugstore , then he had
to be very nervous, because he wasn`t a profi in being a lookout.
And consequently he had to attract Mrs.Henry`s or Mr. Nesbitt`s
attention, when he behaves himself very strange! So why didnŽt
she notice Steve , when he was in the store? But for us it is very
difficult to believe if he is guilty or not, because in the book it
never says what really happened , when Steve came from the shop.
But on the other hand he seems to accept the prosecuters
characterization, when he names his film "Monster" and again,
when he writes the word "Monster" down on his notebook,
until his layer Mrs. OŽBrien stops him and says:" You have to
believe in yourself , if we`re going to convince a jury that your`re
innocent"! (p.22) But she seems to have doubt about his
innocence and doesn`t seem to believe him, because in his diary,
Steve writes (p.88) " She thinks I am guilty "..." I can feel it, when
we sit together.." (p.62) " She wanted to know who I was".
Moreover , during her summation (p.147) she never says that
Steve is innocence, only that he should be found no guilty (p.154).
And again , when Steve wanted to hug her, she moved away,
after Steve`s aquitted (p.166). Did she see in Steve a "Monster",
too, like the prosecuter? And did she only do her job, to
make Steve difference in the eye of the jury? And to make him
difference from King , Osvaldo and Bobo, as she say it? And
have she therefore a bad conscience, to helped a "monster"?
But I think this isn`nt very importent about Steves innocence,
because she didnŽnt know Steve before the crime and therefore
she doesn`t know Steve`s real identity!

But very interesting is, that his own father seems to have doubt
about his innocence, too. When Steve asks his father, if he didn`t
nothing wrong, his father isn`t able, to give him a question. But
instead of that he tells Steve about his own aspiration for him, and
that he never thought to see his son once in prison! ( p.73) So why
doesŽnt his father see any difference between him and the other
bad guys, I think his father should know, if his son is guilty or not,
because he had seen him growing up! So should he found guilty?
But why does his mother think, that he is not guilty?She had also
seeing him growing up! And furthermore his teacher thinks also that
he is innocence, because he sees in him o good and a honest
young man(p.146). Moreover in the book it never says that he
agrees to take part in that robbery, only that he was coincidentally
present, when the robbery was planned. But perhaps his job was
really, to check the store,if it was clear or not. And perhaps in that
moment he realized that he did something wrong. Therefore he
didn`t signal the others, because he wanted that the police would
catch the others. But this isnŽnt really sure! Because we don`nt
know really who Steve is! In one scene he throughs a rock and hit
the girlfriend af a man and runs away, because
he is afraid of him. And in another scene he says to his brother
Jerry that he want to be a superhero "then I would kick butt" ( p.44).
So, who is Steve , the boy who runs away, or the superhero, who
would kick butt?
Steve writes in his diary ." I want to look like a good person. I want
to feel like IŽm a good person, because I believe I am.But being in
here with these guys makes it hard to think about yourself as being
different......."(p.44) The fact is that there are so many black people
in prison, and therefore most prosecuters calls them "Monsters" as
Mrs. O`Brien says:" "YouŽre young, youŽre black and you`re on jail
what else do they need to know"? That means that the odd is
against him. So is it therefore that he says as if the word "monster"
has been stamped on his forehead? And moreover as he wonders ,
if he lies to himself ? ( p.94 )

So can we really say now if he is guilty or not?

To my opinion Myers wanted the readers to guess until the end of
the book, if Steve is guilty or not!